Hon. Justice Ikechi Nweneka of the Lagos Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court has struck out the case filed by Mr. Nasiru Garba and Mr. Edwin John against Dangote Flour Mills challenging their employment termination from work.
The Court held that Mr. Nasiru Garba and Mr. Edwin John’s application non-compliance with the Practice Direction of the Court is fatal to the suit and robs the Court of competence to adjudicate on it.
From facts, the Claimants- Mr. Nasiru Garba and Mr. Edwin John had commenced the suit against Dangote Flour Mill by a General Form of Complaint and sought the declaration of their entitlement to their salaries and allowances from November 2016 till date.
In defense, the defendant- Dangote Flour Mill filed an objection to the suit and urged the court to strike out the case on the ground that the entire originating processes of the Claimants/Respondents offend the mandatory provisions of the Court [Filing of Applications/Motions in Trade Union Matters and Marking of Exhibits] Practice Directions [No. 1] 2022.
In opposition, Counsel to Mr. Nasiru Garba and Mr. Edwin John averred that not every non-compliance with the rules of the court is fatal to the action, and urged the Court to discountenance the company submission in the interest of justice.
Furthermore, Counsel to Dangote Flour Mill, Emmanuel Abraye Esq. with Adejumoke Ademola [Ms] and Uchechukwu Olih [Ms] submitted that while it is trite that not every non-compliance with the rules is fatal to the action, but non-compliance with rules regulating commencement of actions goes to the root of the action and affects the competence of the Court to hear the suit, urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought.
In its well-considered ruling, the presiding Judge, Justice Ikechi Nweneka held that the rules of the Court are not only meant to be obeyed, they are binding on all parties and the Court, and any party who fails to obey the Rules must bear the consequences of its failure.
Hence, The Court ruled that Mr. Nasiru Garba and Mr. Edwin John’s non-compliance with the Practice Direction is fatal to the suit and robs the Court of competence to adjudicate on it.
